lb3 said:

---

Hoyt Ag said:

---

lb3 said:

---

oh no said:

---

how about bureaucrats and politicians with access to inside info can invest in blind trusts and not individual stock trades?

---

Lets make each politician's trading account become a mutual fund that the rest of us can invest in. That way we all benefit from their inside information.

I would gladly invest in the Pelosi and Eye Patch-McCain mutual funds.

---

Just download the autopilot app. My favorite is anti-Cramer and Pelosi. You're welcome.

---

The problem is that congressmen have up to 45 days to report their stock transactions. Wars can be started and ended in less time.

---

I suggest you look at the returns on the app. It works. When I used it last year I made a killing on inverse Cramer. I got away from it because of life getting in the way.

Hoyt Ag said:

---

lb3 said:

---

oh no said:

---

how about bureaucrats and politicians with access to inside info can invest in blind trusts and not individual stock trades?

---

Lets make each politician's trading account become a mutual fund that the rest of us can invest in. That way we all benefit from their inside information.

I would gladly invest in the Pelosi and Eye Patch-McCain mutual funds.

---

Just download the autopilot app. My favorite is anti-Cramer and Pelosi. You're welcome.

---

how wealthy would one be if they just invested the opposite of Jim Cramer advice the last decade or so?

Quote:

---

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that not all those expenses are absolutely necessary. If they can make more money elsewhere, then go do it. No one forced them to serve public office, they ran for public office so they should accept all the responsibility, including financial implications. The system is broken.

---

And of course, their crying never addresses the massive benefits package that comes with the job. And tons of perks.

They should only allowed to invest in broad market ETFs or mutual funds no individual companies

That way they can still invest and feed their families without the worry of insider training

hoopla said:

---

There's something for everyone in this answer.

"So the counterargument is — and I have some sympathy — look, at least let them, like, engage in some stock trading, so that they can continue to, you know, take care of their family." https://t.co/V1qKlnxNGA

— bryan metzger (@metzgov) May 14, 2025

Basic run-down: Salaries have been suspended for 15 years. Congress members need to be able to trade some stocks to provide for their families. A ban will foster less qualified people participating in Congress.

Are you sympathetic to this argument, in any way?

---

How about they do not make a career out of this an instead serve for 1-2 terms and go back home and get a real job.

Sid Farkas said:

---

raise salaries for congressmen. Build em a dormitory on capital hill...and institute term (****ing) limits.

Problem solved

---

We need a way to fill those congressional seats with qualified people from all walks of life. As it is, it's become a money game to get elected and our election integrity has become questionable. There are plenty of folks who would gladly serve 1 - 6yr term in service to their country. Pre-vet people with an initial application, background check, mental health evaluation etc and then fill the seats through a lottery like drawing. Turn 1/3 of Congress over every 2 years so a complete rotational turnover would occur every 6 years. Quit making it a career. And this would completely eliminate campaign donations which are really just buying influence and how a congressional member votes. We don't get true representation now. What we have are bought and paid for politicians.

Also as you mentioned, provide housing in DC. Give every member a free 2 bedroom apartment with a kitchen area in a government owned building. 2 bedrooms would allow family to visit. Include a cafeteria (free meals or cook your own) and a few other amenities like a gym in the building. Require a Monday - Friday workweek and give them a 4 day Friday- Monday weekend once a month so they could go home occasionally. Cut down completely on allowed expenses. Maybe cover travel on that 1 weekend per month.

Then institute a way for states to easily recall members who fail to perform. In other words fire their asses like the private sector does.

Hogties said:

---

Is it even possible to have less qualified people in Congress? AOC, MTG, Omar, Talib, Hank Johnson, Boebert…. The list goes on and on.

---

they are direct reflection of the voters

Hoyt Ag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

BCR said:

---

They are paid $174,000 a year. Talk about waste fraud and abuse.
They do nothing but embarrass themselves on camera.

---

They make good money, but they also have to spend a ton of time in DC while also maintaining a residence in their home state. They get reimbursed for travel and some other expenses, but I think they were on the hook for lodging in DC until 2023 or 2024. A lot of representatives would room together and some even slept in their offices. TLDR is that even if they're making good money, there're a lot of expenses that come with being in Congress. These are also people who could, mostly, be making a lot more somewhere else.

---

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that not all those expenses are absolutely necessary. If they can make more money elsewhere, then go do it. No one forced them to serve public office, they ran for public office so they should accept all the responsibility, including financial implications. The system is broken.

---

You don't get to ***** about the quality of people the job attracts and the quality of their work if you insist the job pay like crap in comparison to the time and skills necessary to do it because you "get" to work for everyone else. The only people who think that others should accept less than their time is worth for the public benefit are socialists and communists.

lb3 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

BCR said:

---

They are paid $174,000 a year. Talk about waste fraud and abuse.
They do nothing but embarrass themselves on camera.

---

They make good money, but they also have to spend a ton of time in DC while also maintaining a residence in their home state. They get reimbursed for travel and some other expenses, but I think they were on the hook for lodging in DC until 2023 or 2024. A lot of representatives would room together and some even slept in their offices. TLDR is that even if they're making good money, there're a lot of expenses that come with being in Congress. These are also people who could, mostly, be making a lot more somewhere else.

---

---

He's not wrong. It's easy to look at eye watering contracts for a lot of professional athletes, but they are also paying a lot to agents, attorneys, accountants and others, even if they aren't making huge salaries.

Take an athlete making $2 million a year. 33% off the top goes to the IRS. ~10% or more will go to an agent. 10% will go to an attorney. Another 5% likely goes to a publicist. Another ~10% goes to state and local taxes (they are taxed everywhere they work, so probably filing a dozen state returns). Another ~5%-10% will go to an accountant to handle all of those returns and manage their money. Many also pay union or league dues. At the end of the day, their actual take home from that may only be a quarter of their contract. Most of those people or entities are also going to take a bite out of sponsorships and spokesperson deals too.

Yall forgot: they all should be audited annually including spouses, Parents, siblings (and their spouses/children) and children.

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

Yall forgot: they all should be audited annually including spouses, Parents, siblings (and their spouses/children) and children.

---

LOL just an audit of the congressional member and their spouse would be fine. They should also be drug tested and take a cognitive test yearly with all these results released publicly. The root of the problem stems from the number of years they spend in Washington. That and campaign donations. Eliminate the need to fund a campaign and take away decades in Washington and the very great majority of the corruption and our problems would go away.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

I honestly do think they should be paid more and cut off from stock trading until they have finished serving.

---

$174,000 + per diems/stipends just doesn't cut it these days.

I like the idea of congressmen being invested in this countries future via the stock market and bonds. Just do it through either a blind trust or it they want to self select, use broad based index funds where you have to set your sell and buy orders up at least 30 days in advance.

1) you don't need to engage in insider trading to provide for your family. Everybody on this board manages this
2) the claim that we'll get less qualified people is a joke. We already have a bunch of feckless turds that don't accomplish anything.

If they want to invest, they should be allowed to do buy-and-hold in well diversified ETFs. But no individual stock picking (insider trading).

hoopla said:

---

There's something for everyone in this answer.

"So the counterargument is — and I have some sympathy — look, at least let them, like, engage in some stock trading, so that they can continue to, you know, take care of their family." https://t.co/V1qKlnxNGA

— bryan metzger (@metzgov) May 14, 2025

Basic run-down: Salaries have been suspended for 15 years. Congress members need to be able to trade some stocks to provide for their families. A ban will foster less qualified people participating in Congress.

Are you sympathetic to this argument, in any way?

---

No.

Complete ban on any government official trading stock because by default, they have insider information on things we do not and never will.

Amazing how they can pass laws that a company CEO cannot dump stock before a crash because they have pre-existing knowledge of that company crash, but they think its perfectly fine for them to do the exact same thing.

Another example of the political class doing everything it can to be a ruling class exempt from laws for us serfs.

So I finally got time to listen to the clip.

He makes the point that salaries for Congress are down 31% since the last pay raise due to inflation

Hmmmm. Inflation caused by government spending? Can anyone tell me where all spending bills originate? Bueller? Bueller?

Congress suffering because of their own damn policies seems like justice to me.


Then he defends gambling in the stock market as a way for Congress to provide for their families. Is there any worse way to provide, other than playing the Lotto?

Though my wife pointed out that it's not gambling if you already "know the numbers"

Can anyone show me a current or former congressman living in assisted housing, on Medicaid, needing food stamps, or any other sign they are not at least upper middle class citizens?

Please spare me the drivel of they need a raise to survive. Ignore your inflation comment (although I agree with you), they always seem to come out fine financially.

Nope

Did I say they needed a raise?

Reading comprehension is your friend

I said it's justice that they are "suffering" because of the inflation they caused

Mutual funds only while in office.

You should not be an elected public servant unless you have found a way to support your family without needing the salary allowed for that position. If you are unable to provide for your family you do not need to be in a position of telling me how to provide for mine.
If you're spending ANY time telling your investment advisor to do this or that with your investments, you are not doing the job I elected you to do. I have no problem with you having investments, but if you're in the game of buying and selling for short term gains, you have incentive to use your office to manipulate that market. Broad based index funds or US treasuries only. Every thing else must be static. What you came in with is what you go out with. At least you should have to disclose your financial interests are before assuming office.
I believe that our elected officials be older, wiser and have incentive to spend less time in their position if they cant afford it. I think our government would more responsible and reflect the will of the people if elected officials were engaged in real public service, not a career of grifting. Bartenders from Queens wouldn't last very long!

These officials need more skin in the game not less!

Property holding males or females. Narrow definitions of property.

Just my opinion[........

oh no said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

It should be set up so that if the overall economy does well, they do well. If they are not doing well, they should make better policy decisions or be replaced by someone who will.

---

S&P500 index funds only; all trades public.

---

This. It's basically company stock. If the country you serve does well then you do well. Don't pass stupid laws that destroy the economy.

4stringAg said:

---

Do like the rest of the world does, go seek alternate employment elsewhere if a Congressional salary can't support your family's needs.

---

My thoughts exactly.

No. That's dumb.

This is interesting.

Representative Josh Gottheimer disclosed purchasing Raytheon stock, $RTX, a weapons stock, on April 23, 2025.

Afterwards, India and Pakistan attacked one another, with $RTX soaring 18% since.

Gottheimer sits on the House Intelligence Committee. pic.twitter.com/PNC2bNC9wa

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) May 15, 2025

Taking care of the family here

BREAKING: This is unusual trading by a politican.

Representative Greg Landsman sold up to $50,000 of United Health, $UNH, on 03/26/2025.

Since, $UNH is down 53%, and it was disclosed that the DOJ was investigating $UNH for possible Medicare fraud.

He sits on the House… pic.twitter.com/anAAd403Bd

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) May 15, 2025

BREAKING: Congress member Julie Johnson literally sold stock right before Trump's tariff news.

She sold hundreds of positions, right before the market dropped. She sold on March 31, April 1, and continued to sell on April 6th.

She literally SOLD BEFORE liberation day.

Insane. pic.twitter.com/6kRBxd3yZJ

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) May 15, 2025

BREAKING: Nancy Pelosi bought $TEM Tempus AI calls at $15.15 on Jan 14th, 2025.

She paid just over $75,000 for these contracts. $TEM is up 10% today, 100% on the year.

She is up millions.

You can only track her option positions exits in real time one place, Unusual Whales. pic.twitter.com/P6BlReF14y

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) May 13, 2025

This is unusual trading by a politician.

Marjorie Taylor Greene bought Palantir, $PLTR, on April 8th.

On April 17th, Palantir, $PLTR, was awarded a government contract with ICE to develop ImmigrationOs.

She sits on the Committee of Homeland Security responsible for such… pic.twitter.com/vLds6yRxSI

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) May 13, 2025

They act like they didn't know the salary going into it. And this isn't indentured servitude. Go find something more lucrative if the salary won't cut it for you.

Hoyt Ag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

BCR said:

---

They are paid $174,000 a year. Talk about waste fraud and abuse.
They do nothing but embarrass themselves on camera.

---

They make good money, but they also have to spend a ton of time in DC while also maintaining a residence in their home state. They get reimbursed for travel and some other expenses, but I think they were on the hook for lodging in DC until 2023 or 2024. A lot of representatives would room together and some even slept in their offices. TLDR is that even if they're making good money, there're a lot of expenses that come with being in Congress. These are also people who could, mostly, be making a lot more somewhere else.

---

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that not all those expenses are absolutely necessary. If they can make more money elsewhere, then go do it. No one forced them to serve public office, they ran for public office so they should accept all the responsibility, including financial implications. The system is broken.

---

They wouldn't be staying in these positions forever if they weren't cleaning up.

Trying to get an audience with a Texas legislature cost $7500 just to have a possibility of seeing him.
Of course it was a donation. They are over paid con men.

oh no said:

---

how about bureaucrats and politicians with access to inside info can invest in blind trusts and not individual stock trades?

---

Sure, in theory.

Is there anyone out there with a brain in their head that really thinks their blind trusts are actually blind??

C'mon.

I hear that masks will prevent covid...

BCR said:

---

Hoyt Ag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

BCR said:

---

They are paid $174,000 a year. Talk about waste fraud and abuse.
They do nothing but embarrass themselves on camera.

---

They make good money, but they also have to spend a ton of time in DC while also maintaining a residence in their home state. They get reimbursed for travel and some other expenses, but I think they were on the hook for lodging in DC until 2023 or 2024. A lot of representatives would room together and some even slept in their offices. TLDR is that even if they're making good money, there're a lot of expenses that come with being in Congress. These are also people who could, mostly, be making a lot more somewhere else.

---

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that not all those expenses are absolutely necessary. If they can make more money elsewhere, then go do it. No one forced them to serve public office, they ran for public office so they should accept all the responsibility, including financial implications. The system is broken.

---

They wouldn't be staying in these positions forever if they weren't cleaning up.

Trying to get an audience with a Texas legislature cost $7500 just to have a possibility of seeing him.
Of course it was a donation. They are over paid con men.

---

Post receipts

Maybe we could get some politicians in there who want to do the right thing, stay for a couple terms and then be done so they can go "provide for their family." Instead we have geriatrics in Congress for over 40 years having "provided for their family" to the tune of being multimillionaires.

Not only should they only be able to invest in index funds. They should not be employable as a lobbyist for a period of 15 years after serving